I've never been called a troll before. I had to go look up the meaning. I found several but this one seems to sum up the general concensus:

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

I do take offense to being called a troll, Citizen Excalpius. I also take offense to being called a parrot, and being accused of posting FUD (whatever that is). I posted what I thought was an interesting article on the new Vista OS, still in beta. I honestly thought it was an article of interest to all of us. One of the primary concerns of Windows XP users has been the security. Or the lack thereof. We've been promised better in the way of Vista. I did a search for "Vista news" today just wanting to read up on any new information that was out there on the subject. At the top of the first page on Google, was a link to this article. I read it, thought it was interesting, and decided I wanted to share the information to provide commentary on the issue.

I'm a contributing member of Wincustomize. Why would I post an article on this site if the sole purpose was to "troll?"

'FUD'...'Fear Uncertainty and Doubt'....

ZDNet is about MAKING MONEY, not informing anyone about anything. If you don't read their articles, they don't get the ad revenue. So they will title the article anything they can to get you to read it.

It seems to me that you are more bothered/upset with the ways and intentions of the site that posted the article than with the content of the article it self.
Just as 47songs did, I could've been the one that read the article and linked it because I think is an interesting piece of information. Does that make me a troll?
The fact that you view this as a trolling/misleading/FUD post (an opinion shared by you alone) doesn’t render the person that posted/linked the article a troll or any similar label.

Now getting back on topic, the article remains a good piece of information.

As one who knows the difference between troll and Troll - you are not the former 47songs (but you may have a little of the latter that's a good thing { The word "Troll" is possibly derived from an old norse word meaning magic} nor would I say you are a parrot. You keep posting lady, I'll keep reading.


psst... y'all ever heard the expression: Guilty dog barks first...?

y'all ever heard the expression: Guilty dog barks first...?

Yep.

Thanks, Bichur, Apocalypse, Jafo, Pic. I appreciate it.

I don't regret posting the article, but I will take responsibility for not making any more of a comment on the initial post. I posted it to get commentary, more thoughts and opinions. Honestly, I didn't consider the source. But whether it is a blog or a national news item, I still believe the written word should be considered debatable. Any written word. Blog or no.

Who are we to believe to tell the whole truth? Or even the partial truth? Bill Gates/Steve Jobs? The Washington Post/Fox News? President Richard Nixon/Bob Woodward? Jark/Spyed? At one time or another all have been debated on their versions of the truth.

I hope the article remains a consideration for further discussion. One of my first reactions to the article was much like Kona and starkers. I find it hard to believe that people sit around trying to think of ways to infect our computers with viruses. Microsoft is declaring war, but it's a battle I'm not sure they can win.

I have already taken responsibility for apparently using the term "troll" too loosely and apparently inaccurately. And my post above apologizes as well for any unintended offense due to that. So I repeat here again (for those who haven't read until the end of any of these, hehe). My bad.

Peace.

PS And yes, you are 100% correct...I think ZDNet is one of the biggest FUD sites online today.

hope the article remains a consideration for further discussion. One of my first reactions to the article was much like Kona and starkers. I find it hard to believe that people sit around trying to think of ways to infect our computers with viruses. Microsoft is declaring war, but it's a battle I'm not sure they can win.

Another good reason to use Linux. But in all respects if you protect yourself chances are you will not get infected by a virus.

The sad thing here is that these virus writers intent is to cause harm and distress....worse still that total strangers to them are adversely affected, meaning there's not even the element of revenge, say, to at least give it some meaning or reason. It's such a senseless act and virus writers should be castrated with a butter knife....ouch, and deservedly so. I'm not normally one for violent reprisals, but these parasites make my blood boil

I agree they (virus writers) should be shot


The thread sounds like it turned into "Trolling" to me

I don't know about FUD but the article is indeed misleading. At least its title is. And I am sure that 47songs isn't trolling either, maybe she just got mislead by the title. In truth the title has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Actually, there are many wrong things about the title and its subtitle. First, it warns about a virus outbreak, when later in the article it says that it will do very little damage. And second it says it will affect Vista when it finally ships, when in reality it won't since the virus attacks Monad and Vista won't ship with Monad, as it's also stated later in the article. And most important of all is that the virus may attack only a specific technology (Monad) that will be available for both XP and Vista, later when it (Monad) ships, and that's over than a year from now, maybe even two years. And the truth is that even if these vulnerabilities aren't fixed by then, it will mainly affect XP users who have it installed, and not Vista. What the article fails to mention is that Vista will always run in restricted mode, meaning that a dialog will popup asking for the administrator password, even if Vista is running under an administrator account. A lot like Linux and OS X do. And that's mainly why Vista will be a lot more secure. Nothing can be installed and no system command can be executed without your knowledge and permission.
So, even is Monad is vulnerable under Vista, it won't matter much since nobody will be able to access it without the administrator password.

Another good reason to use Linux

Not at all. Linux is just as susceptible as any other OS. The only difference is Microsoft is the larger target. I have had more Linux "security" updates in one year, than several years of Windows.

Maybe the article is misleading, as you say Paxx, but one of the things that concerns me is the news revelation (at least for me) that even our encrypted bank accounts are vulnerable to hackers. Can we EVER be safe from hackers? Is Microsoft really capable of securing our computers, identities, and livelihoods with an overhauled operating system?

Is (insert EVERY OS here) really capable of securing our computers, identities, and livelihoods ... ?

not as long as we oh so fallible human beings are part of the security loop

Yes, Excalpius, I guess the main ingredient, as in all considerations of technological welfare, is the human ingredient, which is both exhilerating and frightening at the same time.

Peace!

human ingredient, which is both exhilerating and frightening at the same

Yes....and what is most frightening is how lawmakers have become too lax and lenient on law breakers...thanks to undue pressure from namby pamby do-gooders and civil libertarians. Bah humbug...bring back the rope.

If law enforcement agencies can track the purveyors and users of child porn and bring them to justice, then they can also identify the parasites who dabble in speading internet viruses and bring them to account. Why don't they? The relevant laws are too lax and the penalties are way too insufficient. Internet child porn attracts quite severe penalities, and thus, law enforcement officials are more inclined to feel the time effort and paperwork is worth it. However, on the other hand, to many law enforcement officers, the penalties for virus distribution are inadequate and their efforts are not supported by end result....in effect, a slap on the wrist.

Whilst users of MS, Apple and Linux OSes are pleased there is service after sales, it should not be the entire responsibility of these companies to protect consumers. Law enforcement must play a more active role, with far more stringent laws and penalties to back them up. If I were to take a sledge hammer and systematically destroy a number of computers, I'd be dealt with quite severely due to the violent nature of the crime, and virus distribution is no less of an act of senseless vandalism, so why should it be treated as any less...it shouldn't be.

We don't have the death penalty here in OZ, but if we had a death row, I'd soon have it emptied to make room for these internet criminals